Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 568 (KAR)

P. Venkateshwara Rao v. Iqbal Beig

2009-07-30

P.D.DINAKARAN, V.G.SABHAHIT

body2009
Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, C.J. The writ appeal and writ petitions are related to grant of mining lease of an extent of 15.38 Hectares of Navalatti Village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District and therefore, the above writ appeal and writ petitions are heard and disposed of together. 2.1. Writ appeal No.1243/2008 is directed against the order dated 14th March 2008 made in Writ Petition No.10463/2006 filed by one Iqbal Baig challenging the proceedings dated 1.9.2005 by the State of Karnataka recommending to grant mining lease in respect of Manganese and Iron Ore over an extent of 15.38 Hectaares of Navalatti Village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District in faour of P.Venkateshwara Rao for a period of 20 years, to the Central Government under Section 5(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short hereinafter referred to as “MMDR Act”), made pursuant to the notification dated 15.3.2003 under Rule 59(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short hereinafter referred to as “MC Rules”). 2.2. The learned Single Judge by order dated 14th March 2008, holding that the writ petitioner-Iqbal Baig was not given an opportunity of being heard undr Rule 26(1) of the MC Rules before refusing to grant mining lease in his favour, quashed the proceedings dated 1.9.2005 made in favour of P.Venkateshwara Rao. Hence, the 4th respondent in the Writ Petition-P. Venkateshwara Rao has preferred W.A.No.1243/2008. 3. That apart, the previous history relating to grant of mining lease in respect of the same extent of area is relevant to be referred to as below: .(i) that the mining lease of impugned quarry was originally granted to one Krishnamachari for a period of 20 years i.e. from 18.2.1070 to 17.2.1990; and before the expiry of the lease viz., on 17.2.1990, Krishnamachari applied for renewal on 9.2.1989, but no orders of renewal was passed. Hence, he filed a revision Application in No.2/Kar.55/89-Mines-5 before the Central Mines Tribunal on 2.11.1989 (received on 7.11.1989) against the deemed rejection of his application dated 9.2.1989 and the Central Mines Tribunal, by final order No.666/89, dated 6.12.1989, set-aside the deemed rejection of the application of Krishnamachari dated 9.2.1989 and directed the State Government to dispose of the application filed by Krishnamachari for renewal of mining lease within a period of 200 days from 6.12.1989. It is his case that no orders are passed pursuant to the said order of the Central Mines Tribunal dated 6.12.1989. .(ii) that in the meanwhile, lease expired on 17.2.1990. The original lessee Krishnamachari, however, did not prosecute his claim of renewal either during the period of lease or in his life time. Hence, the right of the original lessee to seek renewal got abated. (iii) that the State Government notified the impugned area as available for grant of lease under Rule 59(1) of MC Rules by notification dated 15.3.2003 and pursuant to which, one Iqbal Baig the petitioner in W.P.No.61038/2009 and P.Venkateshwara Rao the 4th respondent in the said writ petition and petitioner in W.P.No.21319/2009 applied for grant of mining lease. .(iv) that the Government considered the merits of the contesting applicants applying the criteria specified under Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act viz., .(a) any special knowledge of, or experience in, reconnaissance operations, prospecting operations or mining operations, as the case may be, possessed by the applicant; .(b) the financial resources of the applicant; .(c) the nature and quality of the technical staff employed or to be employed by the applicant; .(d) the investment which the applicant proposes to make in the mines and in the industry based on the minerals; and (e) such other matters as may be prescribed. and Rule 35 of MC Rules and after hearing the applicants under Rule 26(1) of the MC Rules, by proceedings dated 1.9.2005, recommended to grant mining lease in favour of P.Venkateshwara Rao, which was challenged by Iqbal Baig, in W.P.No.10463/2006, as stated supra. .(v) that the learned Single Judge, by order dated 14.3.2008, finding that the said proceedings dated 1.9.2005 was not communicated to Iqbal Baig and that no separate reasons were assigned for refusing to grant mining lese in favour of Iqbal Baig, set-aside the order of recommendation made in favour of P.Venkateswara Rao. .(v) that the learned Single Judge, by order dated 14.3.2008, finding that the said proceedings dated 1.9.2005 was not communicated to Iqbal Baig and that no separate reasons were assigned for refusing to grant mining lese in favour of Iqbal Baig, set-aside the order of recommendation made in favour of P.Venkateswara Rao. .(vi) that in the meanwhile, the legal representatives of Krishnamachari preferred a revision application before the Central Mines Tribunal in Revision Application File No.13 (17)/2008-RC.I in the year 2008, contending that they are the legal heirs of late Krishnamachari, in whose favour, the Central Mines Tribunal, by its final order, in No.666/89, dated 6.12.1989, directed the State Government to consider the renewal application filed on 9.2.1989 within 200 days; but no orders have been passed by the State Government pursuant to the order of the Central Mines Tribunal in the revision petition filed by the original lessee Krishnamachari. (vii) that the Central Mines Tribunal, by order dated 5.12.2008 in No.42/2008, taking note of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.3.2008 in Writ Petition No.10463/2006, allowed the revision application and directed the State Government to consider the case of the legal representatives of Krishnamachari. (viii) that pursuant to the direction of the Central Mines Tribunal dated 5.12.2008 as well as the order of the learned Single dated 14.3.2008 in Writ Petition No.10463/2006 and the order dated 14.8.2008 made in W.P.No.21608/2005, by order dated 15.1.2009, directed the Director of Mines & Geology to immediately process the renewal of mining lease in favour of legal representatives of deceased Krishnamachai. .(ix) that in the meanwhile, Iqbal Baig challenged the order of the Central Mines Tribunal dated 5.12.2008 directing the State Government to consider the application of the legal representatives of deceased Krishnamachari filed for renewal of mining lease and the order of the State Government dated 15.1.2009 directing the Director of Mines & Geology to immediately process the renewal of mining lese in favour of legal representatives of deceased Krishnamachari, in Writ Petition No.61038/2009 and this Court has stayed the said impugned orders dated 5.12.2008 and 15.1.2009 and all further proceedings thereto. .(x) that while P.Venkateshwara Rao being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.3.2008 made in Writ Petition No.10463/2006 setting aside the recommendation made in his favour for grant of mining lease has filed W.A.No.1243/2008, he has also challenged the very orders of Central Mines Tribunal dated 5.12.2008 directing the State Government to consider the application of the legal heirs of deceased Krishnamachari for renewal of the mining lease and the order of the State Government dated 15.1.2009 directing the Director of Mines & Geology to immediately process the renewal application of the legal representatives of deceased Krishnamachari, in Writ Petition No.21319/2009. .(xi) that while things stood thus, the petitioner in W.P.No.11447/2009 sitting on the fence watching the above developments, who had filed application on 16.4.2008 for grant of mining lease in respect of very same area, pursuant to the notification dated 15.3.2003 i.e. after nearly five years, challenged the order dated 5.12.2008 of the Central Mines Tribunal and the order dated 15.1.2009 passed by the State Government directing the Director of Mines & Geology to immediately process the renewal application of the legal representatives of deceased Krishnamachari. (xii) Hence, these writ petitions and writ appeal. 4.1. The appellant-P.Venkateshwara Rao in Writ Appeal No.1243/2008 and petitioner in W.P.No.23219/2009, in whose favour, the State Government had recommended to grant mining lease, by order dated 1.9.2005, contends that as on the date of issuance of notification dated 15.3.2003, there was no renewal application pending; the legal representatives approached the Central Mines Tribunal, by way of a revision application after lapse of 18 years; and that the original lessee died in the year 1998, viz., after eight years from the date of expiry of original lease in the year 1990. Since the original lessee has not prosecuted his right to seek renewal, his right to seek renewal abates. As there is no valid application for renewal as on the date of his death, the legal representatives of Krishnamachari have no right to seek for renewal of mining lease originally granted in favour of their father Krishnamachari nor to prefer a revision petition before the Central Mines Tribunal. As there is no valid application for renewal as on the date of his death, the legal representatives of Krishnamachari have no right to seek for renewal of mining lease originally granted in favour of their father Krishnamachari nor to prefer a revision petition before the Central Mines Tribunal. In view of the fact that right to seek renewal by the original lessee itself got abated, the first proviso to Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules is not attracted and therefore, the State Government was well within its jurisdiction to issue notification under Rule 59(1) of MC Rules, notifying the area available for grant of mining lese. Consequently, the Central Mines Tribunal has erred in exercising its jurisdiction under Rule 54 in allowing the revision petition and passing the final order dated 5.12.2008 directing the State Government to consider the renewal application filed by the original grantee and in-turn, the State Government has also, by proceedings dated 15.1.2009, erred in directing the Director of Mines & Geology to process the renewal application in favour of legal representatives of Krishnamachari. 4.2. In any event, the claim of the legal representatives of Krishnamachari seeking renewal of lease, which expired on 17.2.1990, after nearly 18 years, is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. 4.3. In addition to the above contentions, he contends that the contention of Iqbal Baig, the petitioner, in W.P.No.10463/2006, does not deserve any consideration because while recommending grant of mining lease in his favour, the State Government had taken into consideration the criteria specified under Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act and Rule 35 of the MC Rules, of course, after following the procedure contemplated under rule 26(1) of the MC Rules, which infact, was not properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and therefore, the learned Single Judge, by order dated 14.3.2008, ought not to have interfered with the said order of recommendation dated 1.9.2005 made in favour of P.Venkateshwaara Rao and quash the said order of recommendation. 5. That apart, Iqbal Baig has also challenged the claim of legal representatives of Krishnamachari on the same grounds referred to above in Writ Petition No.61038/2009. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the parties reiterated their contentions made on behalf of their respective parties as referred to above. 7. 5. That apart, Iqbal Baig has also challenged the claim of legal representatives of Krishnamachari on the same grounds referred to above in Writ Petition No.61038/2009. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the parties reiterated their contentions made on behalf of their respective parties as referred to above. 7. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Principal Government Advocate and the learned Central Government Standing Counsel. 8. The core issues, in the facts and circumstances of the case, are: .(1) whether the impugned area is available for grant of mining lease under Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules and whether the first proviso to Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules is attracted; and .(ii) whether the recommendation for grant of mining lease in favour of P.Venkateshwara Rao is sustainable in law. 9.1. ISSUE NO.(i): 9.2. In this regard, it is apt to refer to Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules: Whether the impugned area is available for grant of mining lese under Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules and the first proviso to Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules in attracted? “59. 9.1. ISSUE NO.(i): 9.2. In this regard, it is apt to refer to Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules: Whether the impugned area is available for grant of mining lese under Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules and the first proviso to Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules in attracted? “59. Availability of area for regrant to be notified.-(1) No area – .(a) which was previously held or which is being held under a reconnaissance permit or a prospecting licence or a mining lease; or .(b) which has been reserved by the Government or any local authority for any purpose other than mining; or .(c) in respect of which the order granting a permit or licence or lease has been revoked under sub-rule(1) of rule 7A or sub-rule(1) of rule 15 or sub-rule(1) or rule 31, as the case may be; or .(d) in respect of which a notification has been issued under sub-section (2) or subsection (4) of section 17; or (e) which has been reserved by the State Government or under section 17A of the Act, shall be available for grant unless- .(i) an entry to the effect that the area is available for grant is made in the register referred to in sub-rule (2) or rule 7D or sub-rule (2) or rule 21 or sub-rule (2) of rule 40, as the case may be; and .(ii) the availability of the area for grant is notified in the Official Gazette and specifying a date (being a date not earlier than thirty days from the date of the publication of such notification in the Official Gazette) from which such area shall be available for grant: Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to the renewal of a lease in favour of the original lessee or his legal heirs notwithstanding the fact that the lese has already expired. Provided further that where an area reserved under rule 58 or under section 17A of the Act is proposed to be granted to a Government company, no notification under clause (ii) shall be required to be issued: Provided also that where an area held under a reconnaissance permit or a prospecting licence, as the case may be, is granted in terms of sub-section (1) of section 11, no notification under clause (ii) shall be required to be issued. (2) The Central Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax the provisions of sub-rule (1) in any special case.” 9.3. For the purpose of considering the application of the legal representatives of the deceased original lessee, it is relevant to refer the following rules: 9.3.1. Rule 24A(6) of the MC Rules which deals with the renewal of mining lease, as substituted by GSR.724(E), dated 27th September 1994, is apt to be referred to, which reads as hereunder: “24A Renewal of mining lease. – (1) An application for the renewal of a mining lease shall be made to the State Government in Form J, at least twelve months before the date on which the lease is due to expire, through such officer or authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf. .(2) The renewal or renewals of a mining lease granted in respect of a mineral specified in Part ‘A’ and Part ‘B’ of the First Schedule to the Act may be granted by the Government with the previous approval of the Central Government. .(3) The renewal or renewals of a mining lease granted in respect of a mineral not specified in Part ‘A’ and Part ‘B’ of the First Schedule to the Act may be granted by the State Government. Provided that before granting approval for second or subsequent renewal of a mining lease, the State Government shall seek a report from the Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines, as to whether it would be in the interest of mineral development to grant the renewal of the mining lease. Provided further that in case a report is not received from Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines in a period of three months of receipt of the communication from the State Government, it would be deemed that the Indian Bureau of Mines has no adverse comments to offer regarding the grant of the renewal of mining lease. .(4) Omitted. .(5) Omitted. .(6) If an application for the renewal of a mining lease made within the time referred to in sub-rule (1) is not disposed of by the State Government before the date of expiry of the lease, the period of the lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a further period till the State Government passes order thereon. .(7) Omitted. .(8) xxx xxx xxx 9.3.2. .(7) Omitted. .(8) xxx xxx xxx 9.3.2. It is also relevant to refer to Rule 25 A of the Rules, which reads thus: “25A. Status of the grant on the death of applicant for mining lease.-(1) Where an applicant for grant or renewal of mining lease dies before the order granting him a mining lease or its renewal is passed, the application for the grant or renewal of a mining lease shall be deemed to have been made by his legal representative. (2) In the case of an applicant in respect of whom an order granting or renewing a mining lease is passed, but who dies before the deed referred to in sub-rule (1) of rule 31 is executed, the order shall be deemed to have been passed in the name of the legal representative of the deceased.” 9.4. Interpreting Rule 25A of the MC Rules, the Supreme Court in Saligram Khirwal Vs. Union of India and others, [ (2003) 7 SCC 689 ], has held thus: 7. Firstly, Rule 25-A, on its plain reading, does not have any applicability to the situation emerging from the facts of the present case. The rule contemplates the death of an applicant for grant or renewal of mining lease expiring before the order granting him a mining lease or its renewal is passed. (emphasis supplied) In the present case, the death has been of an applicant in whose favour an order for the grant of lease was never passed. The legal position shall have to be determined dehors Rule 25-A. 8. The position of law came to be examined by this Court in C. Buchivenkata Rao v. Union of India. It was a case of mining lease. Their Lordships stated the law in the following words: (SCC p. 739, para 14) “14. It has to be remembered that, in order to enable a legal representative to continue a legal proceeding, the right to sue or to pursue a remedy must survive the death of his predecessor. In the instant case, we have set out provisions showing that the rights which an applicant may have had for the grant of a mining lease, on the strength of an alleged superior claim, cannot be separated from his personal qualifications. No provision has been pointed out to us in the rules for impleading an heir who could continue the application for a mining lease. No provision has been pointed out to us in the rules for impleading an heir who could continue the application for a mining lease. The scheme under the rules seems to be that, if an applicant dies a fresh application has to be presented by his heirs or legal representatives if they themselves desire to apply for the grant of a lease.” 9. Their Lordships clearly held that once the applicant has died, the legal representatives of the deceased applicant shall have to file a fresh application setting out their own qualifications whereon would be determined their entitlement to the grant. It was submitted before Their Lordships that the legal heirs of the deceased applicant should be assumed to be possessing the same rights which the deceased may have had to obtain the lease which rights would survive to the legal heirs and vest in them. Their Lordships specifically turned down the plea and refused to accept the correctness of the assumption sought to be canvassed. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 13. There is an additional fact which cannot be overlooked. The grant in favour of the appellant was made in the year 1980 by way of a mining lese for twenty years. That period has expired during the pendency of these proceedings. In terms of the mining lease, the appellant is entitled to one renewal. The learned counsel for the parties are unable to state at the Bar, for want of instructions, whether the appellant has applied for any renewal and, if so, with what result. Be that as it may, the appellant has operated the mine for a period of about 23 years by this time and substantial investment must have been made by the appellant for operating the mine. It will be a travesty of justice to dislodge the appellant from the mine after a period of 23 years solely for the purpose of considering an application by a competitor which application may or may not be allowed at the end. It will be a travesty of justice to dislodge the appellant from the mine after a period of 23 years solely for the purpose of considering an application by a competitor which application may or may not be allowed at the end. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, it would meet the ends of justice if it is directed that any prayer for renewal of lease made hereinafter shall be treated as an application for a fresh grant and therein the private respondends or any other person shall be entitled to make an application for grant in his favour and to oppose the grant in favour of the appellant herein.” {emphasis supplied} 9.5. As per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Saligram Khirwal’s case, referred to above, on the date of the death of the applicant there should be a subsisting lease and for renewal of the same, an application should have been made by the original lessee, which shall be deemed to have been made by the legal representatives on the death of the original lessee. 10.1. In the instant case, though the original lessee preferred a revision application in No.2/Kar.55/89-Mines-5 before the Central Mines Tribunal on 2.11.1989 and the Central Mines Tribunal by order dated 6.12.1989 in Final Order No.666/89 set-aside the deemed rejection and directed the State Government to dispose of the renewal application within 200 days and though no orders came to be passed by the State Government, the original lessee did not prosecute the case for nearly 18 years from the date of expiry of original lease in the year 1990, either by way of revision or by way of approaching this Court or in the manner known to law and therefore, the lease granted in favour of original lessee is deemed to have been rejected, as per the then rule in force, viz., Rule 24 (3) of MC Rules (omitted in January 1993), which reads thus: “24. Disposal of application for mining lease.- .(1) An application for the grant of a mining lease shall be disposed of within nine months from the date of its receipt. .(2) An application for the renewal of a mining lese shall be disposed of within ninety days from the date of its receipt. Disposal of application for mining lease.- .(1) An application for the grant of a mining lease shall be disposed of within nine months from the date of its receipt. .(2) An application for the renewal of a mining lese shall be disposed of within ninety days from the date of its receipt. .(3) If any application is not disposed of within the period specified in sub-rule(1) or sub-rule (2), it shall be deemed to have been refused.” {emphasis supplied} 10.2. It is evident from Rule 24(3) that as on the date of the application made by the original lessee i.e. Krishnamachari for renewal, if no orders are passed by the State Government within ninety days from the date of its receipt, the claim of original lessee/grantee Krishnamachari was deemed to be rejected and accordingly, the application stood rejected. Therefore, the non-compliance of the order of the Central Mines Tribunal in No.666/89 dated 6.12.1989 will not confer any right in favour of the legal representatives of Krishnamachari to pursue the remedy on the ground of noncompliance of the order dated 6.12.1989, after lapse of 18 years in the year 2008, in review application No.13(17)/2008-RC.1 before the Central Mines Tribunal because even though the Central Mines Tribunal, in the instant case, remanded the matter, from the year 1989, till Krishnamachari is alleged to have met with civil death in the year 1998, the legal representatives did not prosecute their claim for renewal of mining lease. Hence, the right of the original lessee to seem renewal got abated. 10.3. That apart, even after issuance of statutory notification under Rule 59(1) of MC Rules to the effect that the impugned area is available for grant of mining lease, the legal representatives of the original lessee have not chosen to challenge the same. The legal representatives having not challenged the notification, by way of revision of before this Court or in the manner known to law and also for the lapse in approaching the Tribunal, their claim is liable to be rejected. Hence, the first proviso to 59(1) of MC rules is not attracted. As a result, the impugned area is available for grant of mining lease as notified under Rule59(1) of the MC Rules and the same is not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. Hence, the first proviso to 59(1) of MC rules is not attracted. As a result, the impugned area is available for grant of mining lease as notified under Rule59(1) of the MC Rules and the same is not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. On the other hand, the learned Single Judge placed reliance on the evaluation proceedings, assessing the comparative merits of the applicants viz., Iqbal Baig and P.Venkateshwara Rao and others, pursuant to the notification dated 15.3.2003, which would only mean that the Central Mines Tribunal has also relied upon the notification issued under Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules, in as much as, the Central Mines Tribunal has taken into consideration the orders made in Writ Petition No.10463/2006 dated 14.3.2008 and writ Petition No.21608/2005 dated 14.8.2008, where under, the notification dated 15.3.2003 was challenged in the aforesaid writ petitions. In that view of the matter, the legal representatives of original lessee have no locus ninety days from the date of its receipt, the claim of original lessee/grantee Krishnamachari wad deemed to be rejected and accordingly, the application stood rejected. Therefore, the non-compliance of the order of the Central Mines Tribunal in No.666/89 dated 6.12.1989 will not confer any right in favour of the legal representatives of Krishnamachi to pursue the remedy on the ground of non-compliance of the order dated 6.12.1989, after lapse of 18 years in the year 2008, in review application No.13(17)/2008-RC.1 before the Central Mines Tribunal because even though the Central Mines Tribunal, in the instant case, remanded the matter, from the year 1989, till Krishnamachari is alleged to have met with civil death in the year 1998, the legal representatives did not prosecute their claim for renewal of mining lease. Hence, the right of the original lessee to seek renewal got abated. 10.3. That apart, even after issuance of statutory notification under Rule 59(1) of MC Rules to the effect that the impugned area is available for grant of mining lease, the legal representatives of the original lessee have not chosen to challenge the same. The legal representatives having not challenged the notification, by way of revision or before this Court or in the manner known to law and also for the lapse in approaching the Tribunal, their claim is liable to be rejected. Hence, the first proviso to 59(1) of MC rules is not attracted. The legal representatives having not challenged the notification, by way of revision or before this Court or in the manner known to law and also for the lapse in approaching the Tribunal, their claim is liable to be rejected. Hence, the first proviso to 59(1) of MC rules is not attracted. As a result, the impugned area is available for grant of mining lease as notified under Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules and the same is not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. On the other hand, the learned Single Judge placed reliance on the evaluation proceedings, assessing the comparative merits of the applicants viz., Iqbal Baig and P.Venkateshwara Rao and others, pursuant to the notification dated 15.3.2003, which would only mean that the Central Mines Tribunal has also relied upon the notification issued under Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules, in as much as, the Central Mines Tribunal has taken into consideration the orders made in Writ Petition No.10463/2006 dated 14.3.2008 and Writ Petition No.21608/2005 dated 14.8.2008, wehreunder, the notification dated 15.3.2003 was challenged in the aforesaid writ petitions. In that view of the matter, the legal representatives of original lessee have no locus stand To claim any right for renewal of mining lease after the issuance of notification under Rule 59(1) of MC Rules. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal dated 5.12.2008 and the consequential order/direction dated 15.1.2009 of the State Government directing the Director of Mines and Geology to consider the renewal application of the legal representatives of the original lessee is totally without jurisdiction. Hence, both the writ petition No.21319/2009 filed by P.Venkateshwara Rao and Writ Petition No.61038/2009 filed by Iqbal Baig require to be allowed. 10.4. Issue No.(i) is answered accordingly. 11.1. ISSUE NO.(ii) Whether the recommendation to grant mining lease in favour of P. Venkateshwara Rao is sustainable in law? 11.2. In this regard, it is apt to refer to the evaluation proceedings of hearing of the applicants by the Chief Minister, under Rule 26(1) of the MC Rules, which is as follows: “Proceedings of the hearing of applicants taken by the Hon’ble Chief Minister under Rule 26(1) of MCR, 1960 for sanction of mining lease order an extent of 15.38 hectares in Navalatti Village of Sandur Taluk, Bellary District, notified vide Notifiction No.C116MMM2003 dated 15.03.2003. The Sandur manganese and iron Ore Limited, Sandur held a mining lease over an extent of 29.20 Sy. The Sandur manganese and iron Ore Limited, Sandur held a mining lease over an extent of 29.20 Sy. Miles for Manganese and Iron Ore for a period of 20 years from 01.01.1954. At the time of renewal in the year 1974, the lease was renewed for only 18.20 Sq. Miles. The balance of area bearing mostly Iron Ore was deleted for reservation for Public Sector Mining in terms of Government of India letter No.7 (57):73.M.VI dated 19.09.1973. Out of 18.20 Sq. Miles an area of 770-00 hectares was left with M/s. The Sandur Manganese and Iron Ore limited and the balance of area was taken over by the Government. Some individuals and Companies were applying for grant of mining lease in the surrounded area. The State Government also sent recommendations to Government of India for grant of mining lease by relaxation of Rule 59(1) of MCR, 1960 as required under rule 59(2) of MCR 1960. The Government of India directed the State Government to notify such areas for information of Public as per Rule 59(1) of MCR 1960 vide its letter No.4/28/2000-MVI dated 04.01.2001 and returned the proposals sent by the State Government. Accordingly, the State Government vide Notification No.CI.16.MMM.2003 dated 1d5.03.2003, notified the areas. The area under consideration of grant of mining lese is Sl.No.23 of the Notification of 15.03.2003. The total area in Sl.No.23 (Navalatti village) is 15.38 hectares. 2. In response to Notification dated 15.03.2003 (Sl.No.23), 16 applications in all including applications filed before the Notification and applications filed after the first day have been considered. 3. Notice under Rule 26(1) of MCR, 1960 was issued to all the applicants to appear for hearing on 13th April 2005 at 4.30 p.m. to make presentation for sanction of mining lease in their favour. The hearing was held as scheduled and all the 15 applicants who attended the hearing were heard in person. 4. Out of 16 applications, 06 are individuals and 10 are companies/firms. All applications were examined under Section 11(5) of M&M (D&R) Act, 1957 with a view to provide an opportunity to all the applicants who have filed their applications on subsequent days, i.e. after 16.04.2003. 4. Out of 16 applications, 06 are individuals and 10 are companies/firms. All applications were examined under Section 11(5) of M&M (D&R) Act, 1957 with a view to provide an opportunity to all the applicants who have filed their applications on subsequent days, i.e. after 16.04.2003. The reason behind providing opportunity to all the applicants is to hear them personally and to look into their credentials, experience, financial ability, etc, and to take a decision in a more transparent method, so that deserving applicants are not denied their chance. The criteria specified in Section 11(3) of M&M(D&R) Act, 1957 for grant of mining lease are: .(a) Any special knowledge of or experience in reconnaissance operations, prospecting operations or mining operations, as the case may be, possessed by the applicant. .(b) The financial resources of the applicant. .(c) The nature and quality of the technical staff employed or to be employed by the applicant. .(d) The investment which the applicant proposes to make in the mines and in the industry based on the minerals. .(e) Such other matters as may be prescribed. 2. The particulars/details of the individual applicants: INDIVIDUALS Sl. No. Name of the individuals / Companies / Firms Details Abdul Hameed The applicant does not hold any mining lease in Karnataka. The applicant has not mentioned about the proposed investment. However, he has stated financial resources will be financed by Thungabhadra Grameena Bank, and Canara Bank Proposed use of ore is or local supply. 2 Iqbal Baig G. The applicant does not hold any mining lease in Karnataka. He proposes to invest Rs.10 lakhs and desires to use the ore for export. 3 K.R.Krishne Gowda The applicant does not hold any mining lease in Karnataka. He proposes to invest Rs.15 lakhs. Proposed use of ore is for export and also for local supply. 4 S.V.Srinivasulu The applicant holds mining lease No.1634 at Jaisingpur Village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District. The applicant intends to invest Rs.20 lakhs. He has not furnished Income Tax Clearance. Desires to use the ore of indigenous consumption and also for export. 5 S.S.Rajendra Kumar The applicant does not hold any mining lease in Karnataka. He has not mentioned about the proposed investment. He desires to use the ore for local supply and for export. 6 P.Venkateshwara Rao The applicant does not hold any mining lease in Karnataka. The applicant has not mentioned about the proposed investment. 5 S.S.Rajendra Kumar The applicant does not hold any mining lease in Karnataka. He has not mentioned about the proposed investment. He desires to use the ore for local supply and for export. 6 P.Venkateshwara Rao The applicant does not hold any mining lease in Karnataka. The applicant has not mentioned about the proposed investment. He desires to use the ore for captive purpose. He also proposes to establish a Steel Plant in Karnataka. 11.3. A reading of the above proceedings would disclose that the State Government while recommending grant of mining lease in favour of P.Venkateshwra Rao has strictly followed the procedure contemplated under Rule 26(1) of the MC Rules and has also taken into consideration the criteria prescribed under Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act and Rule 35 of the MC Rules. 11.4. As the evaluation proceedings of hearing conducted by the Chief Minister apparently discloses that all the applicants who had filed application pursuant to the notification dated 15.03.2003 were heard in person and their cases were assessed as per the criteria prescribed under Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act and Rule 35 of the MC Rules, we are of the considered opinion that while the State Government recommends in favour of P.Venkateshwara Rao, on its comparative assessment, there is no need to give special reason for rejecting the application of Iqbal Baig. In the evaluation proceedings, the case of Iqbal Baig is assessed as hereunder: 2 Iqbal Baig G The applicant does not hold any mining lease in Karnataka He proposes to invest Rs.10 lakhs and desires to use the ore for export. Whereas, the case of P.Venkateshwara Rao is assessed as follows: 6 P.Venkateshwara Rao The applicant does not hold any mining lease in Karnataka. The applicant has not mentioned about the proposed investment. He desires to use the ore for captive purpose. He also proposes to establish a Steel Plant in Karnataka. 11.5. The comparative statement discloses that while Iqbal Baig desires to use the ore for export, P.Venkateshwara Rao, proposes to use it for captive purpose and for the purpose of establishing steel plant in Karnataka. 11.6. He desires to use the ore for captive purpose. He also proposes to establish a Steel Plant in Karnataka. 11.5. The comparative statement discloses that while Iqbal Baig desires to use the ore for export, P.Venkateshwara Rao, proposes to use it for captive purpose and for the purpose of establishing steel plant in Karnataka. 11.6. In this connection, it is relevant to extract, Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act and Rule 35 of the MC Rules: “11(1) xxx xxx xxx 11(2) xxx xxx xxx .(1) The matters referred to in sub-section (2) are the following:- .(a) any special knowledge of, or experience in, reconnaissance operations, prospecting operations or mining operations, as the case may be, possessed by the applicant: .(b) the financial resources of the applicant; .(c) The nature and quality of the technical staff employed or to be employed by the applicant; .(d) The investment which the applicant proposes to make in the mines and in the industry based on the mineral; .(e) Such other matters as may be prescribed. “Rule 35. Preferential rights of certain persons- Where two ore more persons have applied for reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease in respect of the same land, the State Government shall for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 11 consider besides the matters mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) or sub-section (3) of Section 11, the end use of the mineral by the applicant.” 11.7. Applying the criteria specified under Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act and Rule 35 of the MC Rules, we do not see any error in preferring P.Venkateshwara Rao as against Iqbal Baig. 11.8. That apart, our above view is also fortified by our decision rendered in W.A.No. 5026/2008 and connected matters, disposed of on 5th June 2009, W.P.No. 5022/2009, disposed of on 11th June, 2009 and W.P.Nos.9261-63/2009 & 9264-66/2009, disposed of on 8th July, 2009. 11.9. Hence, we do not see either procedural irregularity violating Rule 26(1) of the MC Rules or illegality in the order recommending grant of mining lease in favour of P.Venkateshwara Rao, which is in accordance with the provisions of Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act and Rule 35 of the MC Rules. 11.10 Issue No.(ii) is answered in the affirmative. 12. Hence, we do not see either procedural irregularity violating Rule 26(1) of the MC Rules or illegality in the order recommending grant of mining lease in favour of P.Venkateshwara Rao, which is in accordance with the provisions of Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act and Rule 35 of the MC Rules. 11.10 Issue No.(ii) is answered in the affirmative. 12. Writ petition No.11447/2009 filed by one other applicant viz., M/s.Siddartha Enterprises challenging the order of the Central Mines Tribunal dated 5.12.2008 and the order of the State Government dated 15.1.2009 directing the Director of Mines and Geology to process and consider the renewal application of legal representatives of the original lessee does not deserve consideration, since the petitioner-company filed application for grant of mining lease belatedly on 16.4.2008 in response to the notification dated 15.3.2003 issued under Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules and therefore, has no locus stand to challenge the orders impugned in the writ petition. That apart, by the time, the petitioner had submitted its application i.e. on 16.4.2008, the State Government by proceedings dated 1.9.2005 had already recommended to grant mining lease in favour of P.Venkateshwara Rao and therefore, the claim of the petitioner herein is liable to be rejected for want of bona fide. Therefore, Writ Petition No.11447/2009 is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, we pass the following: Order .(i) Writ Appeal No.1243/2008 filed by P.Venkateshwara Rao is allowed; .(ii) Writ Petition No.21319/2009 filed by P.Venkateshwara Rao is allowed; (iii) Writ Petition No.61038/2009 filed by Iqbal Baig is allowed; and (iv) Writ Petition No.11447/2009 filed by M/s.Siddartha Enterprises is dismissed.